Satisfying Roleplaying Revisited

It can be valuable to have a friend call you out when they think you're wrong about something, especially if they believe you're deluding yourself in some respect and happen to be correct. And of course, this friend should be reasonably tactful about doing something like this. It's important to consider when reacting that the friend is truly looking out for your best interests, even if he makes you uncomfortable.

As it happens, I don't think my friend (Nate) is correct in this case, but what he had to say was valuable in more than one respect anyway. He said that he felt my preference for running GM-driven games at conventions vs. running player-driven indie games comes down to ego. He felt that, at the core, the reason I like to run that kind of game is that I like to try to show off how clever I can be.

I had to seriously consider the possibility that he was right. After all, I have to admit that I enjoy when players tell me they like the way I've written a character or timed a key plot twist. Who doesn't like being on the receiving end of a compliment?

Then he asked the question that clarified it all for me. He asked why I think my personal creativity would be superior to that of a table full of players in creating a dramatic situation that would be satisfying for those players. It was a good question. My answer at the time was that I sometimes spend weeks or months considering how to create an interesting dramatic situation for a game, while that group of players is coming up with ideas on the fly. They have synergy; I have preparation. So which is better?

The answer is, neither one. Which is better depends on what kind of a game experience you like and how creative the people involved are. If the GM in a "top down" situation isn't creative and does a poor job of preparation, you're in for a bad ride as a player, while a well prepared GM can be very entertaining. If you're in a player driven situation with players who bring nothing to the table, that's likely to be a bad experience, too. I've also participated in player-driven games with remarkable people who constructively bounced off of each other, creating very enjoyable situations.

To use a musical analogy, it's the difference between a group of musicians playing a song they all know and a group of musicians jamming together. Musicians playing a structured song are constrained by the limitations of that song (though they can improvise to a point), but if the song is well written, the result is likely to be more pleasing to an independent listener than pure improvisation. Musicians jamming may be thoroughly enjoying themselves, but even they will admit that the results are musically uneven, however talented the players may be.

In the case of a roleplaying game, the creative people and the audience are the same people, so there are no uninvolved parties. Jamming is arguably better for that reason. On the other hand, this doesn't take into account that all creativity is not equal. Some people are brimming with ideas, while others bring little to the table.

Indie games try to solve that problem with game mechanics that assist and encourage the less creative players to contribute more and prevent the more creative players from excessively dominating the session. The idea is similar to some jazz, where the musicians use a particular song as a basis for improvisation with different players coming to the forefront at times. In theory, you get the best of both worlds with a combination of structure and improvisation. In practice, if you have a weak player in that situation, it still shows.

It's true that people have more capacity for creativity than they realize, but different people come to the game table for different reasons. Some of them come to be entertained and simply don't want to work that hard for their entertainment. Those players prefer to be presented with an interesting situation they can react to, and want the GM to "bring the awesome", as some of the indie folks like to put it.

At the end of the day, it's two different experiences and a matter of preference. If I'm the GM in a "top down" game, I have the most creative input and as long as I put the work in, the experience is satisfying for me personally, even if the players aren't great (and of course it's better if the players are good). I don't think it's about ego for me as much as it is about seeing the kind of story play out that I find interesting, and I'm willing to put the work in to get there. If the players in that situation are satisfied with their level of creative input and with what I bring to the table, everybody is happy. If I participate in an indie game where players have equal input, I have to be more fussy about the quality of the players for me personally to achieve the same level of enjoyment. On the other hand, if the players in that indie game are good, it's a whole lot less work for all concerned to have that positive experience, which is a Very Good Thing. There's plenty of room in the gaming world for all of it. I think the key is to recognize what kind of game is likely to please you, then find other people who enjoy the same type of structure.